Tri-X pushed -DDX or Rodinal?

[Znerken]

Hey everyone. I have fallen in love with film. For years I have been unhappy with the digital black and whites, and then finally I found tri-x. It feels so good for me to not worry about new camera releases and gazillions of megapixels... Anyway, to the question:
I wonder if you recommend DDX or Rodinal 1:50 for tri-x 400 pushed to 800 or 1600.

Until now I have used DDX, but to be honest I really like the gritty pushed tri-x look. This look disappears with DDX as it is a fine grain developer? If I am not mistaken.

Right now I outsource the developing, and the two alternatives I have now is DDX in machine or Rodinal 1:50 hand developed. To be honest, I am not that happy with the machine developing. On the last rolls I have gotten there has been some marks from the chemicals. Perhaps not good or long enough cleaning in water? Perhaps it's more safe with Rodinal in hand development?

Anyway, what's your thoughts on this?

 

[Znerken]

I'm sorry for the low res, but here you can see the mark I am talking about. Is this because of bad cleaning?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rich Ullsmith]

If the choice is between a process you can control and one you can't, I choose the former.

If I had both developers on hand, I would choose the DDx. Just me.

 

[bernard_L]

You do not "push" tri-X to 800 or 1600. You just under-expose it. Empty shadow areas.

Rodinal is not noted as being a speed-enhancing developer.

 

[James Page]

Rodinal and TX pushed = grain. Lots of big grain. As a general rule, "rodinal" and "pushed" should never be used in the same sentence.

 

[Znerken]

Either way Bernard, this is the look I am going for With DDX I actually haven't lost any shadow detail.


Here's an example

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

Rodinal and TX pushed = grain. Lots of big grain. As a general rule, "rodinal" and "pushed" should never be used in the same sentence.

Do you think this shot is developed in Rodinal? I know it's tri x pushed to 1600.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

If the choice is between a process you can control and one you can't, I choose the former.

If I had both developers on hand, I would choose the DDx. Just me.

By this I guess you mean that hand developing is better? I actually would agree. The lab meant that machine was better, because of the smaller chance for scratches.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[albada]

The big spot in the first scan looks like a water-mark during drying, indicating poor washing or sloppy handling.
It's easy to develop black and white film yourself, so I encourage you to do so. Then you can use any developer or process you wish.
BTW, those are interesting street-shots. Keep up the good work.

Mark Overton

 

[trythis]

Diafine, a different developer altogether recommends shooting tri-x at 1600. Never tried it but its on my to do list since i bought the stuff. Easy as pie to use!


Sent with typotalk

 

[Sirius Glass]

Welcome to APUG

 

[mrred]

I never liked DDX so I would recommend Rodinal. You can get any results you want with Rodinal. You just have to take some time to learn it.

If it is just the look you are after, you may not need to push at all. The portions of your image that you want blocked, shift the exposure down to zone 1. Expose your print accordingly and you have that blocked up look without compromising the developer of choice.

 

[markbarendt]

With DDX I actually haven't lost any shadow detail.

Well, not exactly.

If one reduces exposure one loses shadow detail on the film, that's the way the physics works. Now whether any lost detail was important or not to the print is a whole different question.

What can be said is that when you were shooting your delta 400 at 2-stops under box speed using your metering method and tools you got enough detail to get a good print. That's not much of a surprise.

While DD-X might give you a little extra speed over Rodinal it's probably only 1/3 to 1/2 a stop maybe less, not 2-stops.

 

[Znerken]

I never liked DDX so I would recommend Rodinal. You can get any results you want with Rodinal. You just have to take some time to learn it.

If it is just the look you are after, you may not need to push at all. The portions of your image that you want blocked, shift the exposure down to zone 1. Expose your print accordingly and you have that blocked up look without compromising the developer of choice.

I actually want the EI 800 or 1600, but the question is wether I get the look at that with Rodinal 1:50? I see many people strongly recommend to stay away from Rodinal when pushing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

The big spot in the first scan looks like a water-mark during drying, indicating poor washing or sloppy handling.
It's easy to develop black and white film yourself, so I encourage you to do so. Then you can use any developer or process you wish.
BTW, those are interesting street-shots. Keep up the good work.

Mark Overton

Ye and this was actually developed in a machine, and it has happened twice now, on two of three rolls. Would you say the chance for errors like this are a lot smaller when someone with many decades of experience hand develops it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

Do you think this shot is developed in Rodinal? I know it's tri x pushed to 1600.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This shot is from Eric Kim by the way, I really like it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Znerken]

The big spot in the first scan looks like a water-mark during drying, indicating poor washing or sloppy handling.
It's easy to develop black and white film yourself, so I encourage you to do so. Then you can use any developer or process you wish.
BTW, those are interesting street-shots. Keep up the good work.

Mark Overton

Thank you! I have been doing street for a while, but changing to film really made me feel like I am in the right place. The one with the car in the garage is taken by Eric Kim though, I just posted that because I am curious if the huge grain is from Rodinal.

I'm adding a couple shots here I made with tri-x / t-max in the last two months

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nuff]

I'm not a fan of rodinal, it looks too grey to me and I prefer more contrasty images. For me at normal speed hc110 is the choice and tmax developer for pushing (similar to ddx).

If you like high contrast, you might consider hc110 even for pushing.

 

[Znerken]

I'm not a fan of rodinal, it looks too grey to me and I prefer more contrasty images. For me at normal speed hc110 is the choice and tmax developer for pushing (similar to ddx).

If you like high contrast, you might consider hc110 even for pushing.

I actually thought it was opposite? DDX is flat and fine grained while Rodinal is gritty and contrasty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mrred]

I actually want the EI 800 or 1600, but the question is wether I get the look at that with Rodinal 1:50? I see many people strongly recommend to stay away from Rodinal when pushing.

Rodinal requires a bit of skill to get more than the ordinary from it. It's a common misconception that you will get only pothole size grain. Here are a few examples of EI 3200 on HP5. https://www.flickr.com/photos/peterbcarter/albums/72157622674774965

I did that set to see how far I could go. I could have gone farther. HP5 wasn't special, it could have been shot with most ISO400 films. The notes are in the comments.

 

[markbarendt]

I actually want the EI 800 or 1600, but the question is wether I get the look at that with Rodinal 1:50? I see many people strongly recommend to stay away from Rodinal when pushing.

... You can get any results you want with Rodinal.

mrred is right, Rodinal can get you the contrast you want. IMO that is just as true of DD-X, RolloPyro, ...

The magic isn't in the chemicals or some perfect ratio of a:b. This is not to say there are no differences in the final look; graininess, tonality, et al. It is to say that the snappiness/contrast in the final image is about all the links-in-the-chain. The developer is just one link.

The look you want doesn't require a film development "push", it can be achieved (maybe even more easily and accurately) when printing by hardening up on the paper grade and with print exposure changes. Similarly, your pushed negatives can just as easily be printed to look "flatter" by using a softer paper grade.

... You just have to take some time to learn it. ...

mrred is right and that is the key.

The final look of any photo is determined by how much we each understand about the whole process and what we leave at the default setting.

 

[Znerken]

mrred is right, Rodinal can get you the contrast you want. IMO that is just as true of DD-X, RolloPyro, ...

The magic isn't in the chemicals or some perfect ratio of a:b. This is not to say there are no differences in the final look; graininess, tonality, et al. It is to say that the snappiness/contrast in the final image is about all the links-in-the-chain. The developer is just one link.

The look you want doesn't require a film development "push", it can be achieved (maybe even more easily and accurately) when printing by hardening up on the paper grade and with print exposure changes. Similarly, your pushed negatives can just as easily be printed to look "flatter" by using a softer paper grade.



mrred is right and that is the key.

The final look of any photo is determined by how much we each understand about the whole process and what we leave at the default setting.

Thank you. Appriciate the answer. I know this is a learning process, and I agree that the development is just one part of the chain, but, I would like to know which one of the developers take me closer to the look I want. Right now my alternatives are:
* lab 1 DDX machine developed
* lab 2 Rodinal 1:50 done with hands

None of them are locally, the Rodinal is cheaper as he is nicer with the price. I would love some guiding in which of this alternatives to choose.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

None of them are locally, the Rodinal is cheaper as he is nicer with the price. I would love some guiding in which of this alternatives to choose.

My point is that; it flat out doesn't matter which of these two developers you choose: both are excellent developers and both are fully capable of doing what you ask.

You or your lab can use either developer to get your film exactly to the contrast specification you want; no if's, no and's, no but's. (It's a matter of "will they" not "can they".)

The big question/wlid card here should not be "how should I develop the film", it should be "how am I going to print it?"

Are you printing on VC paper, graded paper, scanning and using PS, ... ?

To make a good decision on how to develop your film, you have to have already specifically and exactly defined every single step and the material you will use to print it. For example a target of "fixed grade, grade 2, fiber base paper, in a condenser enlarger" requires a very specific film development process to make printing easy, on the other hand; VC paper (say Ilford RC MG IV) printed with a color head is nowhere near as finicky about how the film was developed, a wide range of film contrast specifications/development regimes will work just fine with a twist of a knob or two. Scanned work even less finicky than VC paper.

I'm not suggesting that there will be no difference between a DD-X neg and one done in Rodinal, just that the differences between negatives that are developed objectively to an equal contrast standard will be described by characteristics like grittiness, graininess, resolution, and sharpness; not the overall look, contrast, or snappiness. (And the differences will typically be minor.)

Want a little extra grit, go with Rodinal; want a little less grain go with DD-X. Beyond that it's all about the skills of the people doing the work.

 

[Znerken]

My point is that; it flat out doesn't matter which of these two developers you choose: both are excellent developers and both are fully capable of doing what you ask.

You or your lab can use either developer to get your film exactly to the contrast specification you want; no if's, no and's, no but's. (It's a matter of "will they" not "can they".)

The big question/wlid card here should not be "how should I develop the film", it should be "how am I going to print it?"

Are you printing on VC paper, graded paper, scanning and using PS, ... ?

To make a good decision on how to develop your film, you have to have already specifically and exactly defined every single step and the material you will use to print it. For example a target of "fixed grade, grade 2 paper, in a condenser enlarger" requires a very specific film development process to make printing easy, on the other hand; VC paper printed with a color head is nowhere near as finicky about how the film was developed, a wide range of film contrast specifications/development regimes will work just fine with a twist of a knob or two. Scanned work even less finicky than VC paper.

I'm not suggesting that there will be no difference between a DD-X neg and one done in Rodinal, just that the differences between negatives that are developed objectively to an equal contrast standard will be described by characteristics like grittiness, graininess, resolution, and sharpness; not the overall look, contrast, or snappiness. (And the differences will typically be minor.)

Want a little extra grit, go with Rodinal; want a little less grain go with DD-X. Beyond that it's all about the skills of the people doing the work.

Thank you. If what you say is true, then there is way too many trolls around. I have read so many places that Rodinal is terrible at developing film that you have pushed, and that's why I got unsure and asked here. I feel that I got pretty good control on what happens after the developing is done. I scan the negative, and raw scan usually looks pretty flat, but I got tons of detail in both shadow and in highlights. From there I work my way to the final photo, which I know how I want. Then I print it on matte paper. If I really love it I print it on expensive cotton paper. I know some people don't like this hybrid method, but let's not get started on that now.

Let me try to ask my question clearer: if I push my tri-x(maximum 1600) which one of the labs would you guys choose? Everything considered

If I am not mistaken: the pro for DDX is that you get a negative with low grain and lots of information. That way you have more alternatives to work with in the digital darkroom. Rodinal has really visible grain, correct? The pro for Rodinal is that you get the gritty look I am after, or am I wrong? If I am right, then I believe Rodinal is the winner.

So let me ask my question even further:

I hope I don't piss you of now, I know the developer isn't as important as I first believed. But if I want the gritty look like this photo:

(Photo Eric Kim)
would Rodinal be better than DDX to get that gritty look?

Again sorry if I am slow now, I try my best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[markbarendt]

Thank you. If what you say is true, then there is way too many trolls around.

Not trolls, most people just like thinking they are right. They may be right for themselves, they may even have a chip on their shoulder, but that doesn't necessarily translate to being right for you too.

As to which lab?

In your situation, considering two separate labs, IMO by far the biggest differences you will ever see between any two Tri-X films sent to separate labs will be because of the people doing the work, not because of the difference in any chemical they use.